why should pedestrians not be showing the same attention when waiting to cross.

Yeah, the consequences of you stopping for someone who doesn't wish to cross the road are that you have to start moving again. This is a minimal cost in time or fuel.

The consequences of you not stopping when someone does cross is ... yeah.

I'm not trying to get down on you but it is pretty much this attitude from drivers which sees their convenience as being of equal importance to my safety which leads me to no longer cycle.

You are in a car. I'm sorry but you can stand a little inconvenience such as stopping for people who don't want to cross at crossings or coming out of your driveway really slowly even when you are running late if it makes the rest of us safer.

I used to be a careless cyclist through my teens and early twenties. I have been hit multiple times on the footpath, even spat at for riding on the footpath, and generally accosted by cagers whenever they see me doing something that doesn't agree with them. The police have even stopped me for riding through lights but that's another story.

Since then i've moved to Wellington. Grown up. And gotten scared. I now ride a motorcycle as it keeps up with traffic easier and I like to think i'll be safer that way. I do drive a car also and think/hope that i'm a much better driver because of my two wheeled experience.

I don't condone anything i've done and am embarrassed by a lot of it but I won't be sorry for riding on the footpath for short distances when it's much safer than riding on the road. Instances include the many narrow roads with parking on both sides and cagers not giving enough space. Blind corners when i've just seen a car fly around on the wrong side of the road well within reach of me if I was 10m ahead and on the road.

I've been hit twice by cars flying out of driveways without slowing or looking. It wouldn't have mattered if I was on a bike with small wheels, a scooter, been older, or younger, I would have been hit.

This thread shouldn't be about how stupid cyclists are for riding on the footpath, it should be about how everyone can make it safe enough that anyone riding anywhere can be safe.

FWIW - I no longer ride a bicycle in the city. It's too dangerous on the roads and I won't ride on the footpath exclusively because it's inconsiderate to pedestrians. Not to mention often just as scary as the road.

keewee01: I stop and let them cross completely (as you are meant to, but most people don't - I wait until they've stepped off the crossing before starting off again). I see very few others doing that - most vehicles start moving again as soon as the person crossing is clear the car.

Once someone has passed in front of you how do you "Give Way"?

The Road Code has the following

"When coming up to pedestrian crossings:

slow down and be ready to stop for any pedestrians stepping onto, or on the crossing. This also includes people obviously waiting to use the crossing.

if there is no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing

if there is a raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on your half of the road

wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed - see give way rules."

The last point isn't explicit in the Legislation but it is the Transport Agency's wording.

keewee01: I stop and let them cross completely (as you are meant to, but most people don't - I wait until they've stepped off the crossing before starting off again). I see very few others doing that - most vehicles start moving again as soon as the person crossing is clear the car.

Once someone has passed in front of you how do you "Give Way"?

The Road Code has the following

"When coming up to pedestrian crossings:

slow down and be ready to stop for any pedestrians stepping onto, or on the crossing. This also includes people obviously waiting to use the crossing.

if there is no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing

if there is a raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on your half of the road

wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed - see give way rules."

The last point isn't explicit in the Legislation but it is the Transport Agency's wording.

Um - the middle 2 points are the relevant ones to my comment! Basically is someone standing on the crossing you need to give way to them. Not sure if you were backing up what I wrote or trying to contradict it in some way???

Bung: The last point applies to both situations. It is the reason you see "most vehicles start moving again as soon as the person crossing is clear the car."

Oh yeah - that's crazy. We have idiots writing the rules when the last rule contradicts the previous 2!

All the publicity at the time pushed the fact that it was against the law to move onto the crossing before the pedestrians had moved off. No wonder the younger generations drive the way they do - they have no idea what the rules are because they're contradictory! Sigh.

keewee01: Similarly I don't give cyclists riding across a pedestrian crossing the time of day either. If they've stopped and dismounted I will stop and let them cross the crossing, as they are a pedestrian. Otherwise, tough.

If I take that to its logical conclusion, as a pedestrian crossing your driveway shouldn't I expect you to get out of your car and walk/push it across the footpath when entering and exiting your driveway?

A little tolerance of what is practial might be in order.

Personally I think it should be legal for a cyclist to use the footpath, level crossing etc but at no more than, say, 10km/h if that footpath isn't posted as shared/cycleway.

I think it's not who is in the right or who is in the wrong that is the most important issue here. It's about who is most likely to come out second best if there is a collision. The car driver is likely to have no more than a few scratches or a small dent in their car. The cyclist is almost always likely to come out second best being injured or in the worst case killed.

Cyclists (and even pedestrians) should always be aware that they will be the ones to be injured. The desire not to be injured should be stronger in them than in the motorist in their protective metal cocoon. Sure, the cyclist or pedestrian may definitely be in the right if an accident occurs, but as I said before what's the point of being dead right?

Would you step out onto a pedestrian crossing if you see a car coming that is not going to stop just because you have the legal right to cross and make them give way to you? Not many would be foolish enough to do this as they know they will be injured or worse. So even if cyclists had the legal right of way on footpaths they should ride their bikes as if they do not as they will be the one to lose the most in the end.

keewee01: Similarly I don't give cyclists riding across a pedestrian crossing the time of day either. If they've stopped and dismounted I will stop and let them cross the crossing, as they are a pedestrian. Otherwise, tough.

If I take that to its logical conclusion, as a pedestrian crossing your driveway shouldn't I expect you to get out of your car and walk/push it across the footpath when entering and exiting your driveway?

A little tolerance of what is practial might be in order.

Personally I think it should be legal for a cyclist to use the footpath, level crossing etc but at no more than, say, 10km/h if that footpath isn't posted as shared/cycleway.

Footpaths are there to allow pedestrians a safe place to travel off the road (rather than having to walk along the side of the road). When it comes to driveways it is a respect thing both ways. You suggest I have no tolerance. You don't know me. How dare you suggest I am not tolerant! I am very tolerant. The point I make is that there are a lot of cyclists, skateboards, etc out there who are flouting clear rules/laws - why should those who know better be afforded tolerance? It isn't legal for ANYONE to run a red light or travel down a footpath at 30 or 40km/h. (And the same goes for drivers breaking the law, I don't have anything against cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders or anyone else in general - but some of you have made up your own little minds that I do - well you are wrong!)

If there are a lot of cyclists in your area then you should be lobbying the local authorities to create cycle lines like has happened locally.

I take this view of cyclists riding across pedestrian crossings because it is illegal for them to do so (or at least it certainly used to be an instant $80 fine). By stopping to allow them to cycle where they're not meant to be am I not them encouraging their illegal behavior?

If cyclists are using footpaths, etc then I agree that it should be at a low speed, and no one would probably take issue with it - but the reality is there are a lot out there (cyclists, skateboarders, etc) in a hurry to get somewhere (like many motorists are too) and traveling a darn site faster along footpaths than is safe for all users of the footpath.

A number of skateboarders were regularly skating along the footpath of our main street at speed - they were forcing pedestrians to get out of their way, elderly people were being jostled by then, and anyone who didn't move out of there way or asked them to slow down was abused. Therefore, skateboards were banned from the footpaths of our main street. Should we have been more tolerant of the skateboarders behavior?

geek4me: Would you step out onto a pedestrian crossing if you see a car coming that is not going to stop just because you have the legal right to cross and make them give way to you? Not many would be foolish enough to do this as they know they will be injured or worse.

Pedestrians don't have absolute right of way, they are obliged to wait if there is a car already too close to the crossing to give way. Drivers must give way to pedestrians on the crossing or "obviously waiting to cross it". People coming straight out of Oriental Bay cafes and launching onto the crossings without looking are bad enough but it's the cyclists that are more likely to be right in front of you at the very last moment.

keewee01: Similarly I don't give cyclists riding across a pedestrian crossing the time of day either. If they've stopped and dismounted I will stop and let them cross the crossing, as they are a pedestrian. Otherwise, tough.

If I take that to its logical conclusion, as a pedestrian crossing your driveway shouldn't I expect you to get out of your car and walk/push it across the footpath when entering and exiting your driveway?

A little tolerance of what is practial might be in order.

Personally I think it should be legal for a cyclist to use the footpath, level crossing etc but at no more than, say, 10km/h if that footpath isn't posted as shared/cycleway.

Footpaths are there to allow pedestrians a safe place to travel off the road (rather than having to walk along the side of the road). When it comes to driveways it is a respect thing both ways. You suggest I have no tolerance. You don't know me. How dare you suggest I am not tolerant! I am very tolerant. The point I make is that there are a lot of cyclists, skateboards, etc out there who are flouting clear rules/laws - why should those who know better be afforded tolerance? It isn't legal for ANYONE to run a red light or travel down a footpath at 30 or 40km/h. (And the same goes for drivers breaking the law, I don't have anything against cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders or anyone else in general - but some of you have made up your own little minds that I do - well you are wrong!)

If there are a lot of cyclists in your area then you should be lobbying the local authorities to create cycle lines like has happened locally.

I take this view of cyclists riding across pedestrian crossings because it is illegal for them to do so (or at least it certainly used to be an instant $80 fine). By stopping to allow them to cycle where they're not meant to be am I not them encouraging their illegal behavior?

If cyclists are using footpaths, etc then I agree that it should be at a low speed, and no one would probably take issue with it - but the reality is there are a lot out there (cyclists, skateboarders, etc) in a hurry to get somewhere (like many motorists are too) and traveling a darn site faster along footpaths than is safe for all users of the footpath.

A number of skateboarders were regularly skating along the footpath of our main street at speed - they were forcing pedestrians to get out of their way, elderly people were being jostled by then, and anyone who didn't move out of there way or asked them to slow down was abused. Therefore, skateboards were banned from the footpaths of our main street. Should we have been more tolerant of the skateboarders behavior?

My local council has removed all the cycle lanes, and turned them into parking bays. They are also no longer going to provide free recycling collection either, but that is another topic. I do think that cyclists riding on footpaths these days, is given the blind eye by the authorities, they have bigger things to do. Apparently jaywalking is also illegal, but I have never seen anyone fined for it. I see so many cyclist on the footpath these days, often it is kids riding with their parents, when the footpath is likely to be more dangerous than riding on the road. At least drivers on the road can see you if you are cycling, unlike drivers coming out of driveways.

Bung: Pedestrians don't have absolute right of way, they are obliged to wait if there is a car already too close to the crossing to give way. Drivers must give way to pedestrians on the crossing or "obviously waiting to cross it". People coming straight out of Oriental Bay cafes and launching onto the crossings without looking are bad enough but it's the cyclists that are more likely to be right in front of you at the very last moment.

I was thinking of drivers who are not too close to the crossing to stop but you can tell (call it 6th sense) that they are not going to.